Former Congresswoman: Not too late to hold Bush and Cheney accountable

[IDemo]

Source: RawStory

Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) told MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on Thursday that former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney could still be held accountable for violating federal criminal statues.

“As a former prosecutor and a former member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, I spent a lot of time taking a look at the statues,” she explained. “It’s one thing to abuse power, and it’s one thing not to do the right thing, but it’s another thing to commit a crime.”

Holtzman said Bush and Cheney appear to have “knowingly” violated at least three statues.

She said Bush and Cheney likely committed conspiracy to defraud the United States, for the “deceptions” involved in going to war with Iraq. Secondly, she claimed they violated federal statues regarding the wiretapping of Americans without a court order. Thirdly, Holtzman said Bush and Cheney violated federal laws prohibiting torture.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/19/former-congresswoman-not-too-late-to-hold-bush-and-cheney-accountable/

[madamesilverspurs]

1. Good grief.

I generally don't comment on others' flubs on these boards, given that I frequently make my own.

But it's stunning that Raw Story would fail to notice the difference between statues and statutes. Had some right wing entity made this error, we'd be all over it like stink on poo.

gahhhhh......

[L. Coyote]

5. Just be glade they didn't poster itch which and iPhone

[IDemo]

8. You hadn't heard?

Turns out, on top of everything else Dick and George were doing, they were actually violating statues as well.

[SnohoDem]

13. I thought that was Ashcroft n/t

[harmonicon]

23. http://instantrimshot.com/

[chknltl]

40. statue sex?? this sub-thread is worthless without photos.

Scooping the lounge on anything relating to perverted sex is...well ...simply unheard of! Your reference to statue sex may be a first!

[freshwest]

17. Also during that era Congress exempted on the wiretapping. You know, that wonderful Patriot Act...

'Covered a multitude of sins.'

Big, fat, nasty ones.

[Javaman]

22. Seinfeld said it best...

Kramer: Well, I'm not giving it back.

Jerry: Why not?

Kramer: Because I meet a lot of women in this jacket, you know they're attracted to it. Why do you think my mother went out with him?

[Kramer takes some nachos and spills some to Elaine's test.]

Kramer: Oh, gees...

Elaine: Yeah, ok...[takes the test and goes to another table.]

Kramer: Anyway, it's been two years. I mean isn't there like statue of limitations on that?

Jerry: Statute.

Kramer: What?

Jerry: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue.

Kramer: No, statue.

Jerry: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.

[PassingFair]

25. This one was violated so often it had to be covered up!

[JDPriestly]

30. Lovely way to distract from the truth of the Congresswoman's statements.

Allegations of violations of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments (arguably) plus fraud to get us into war (never did figure out who was behind the Niger scandal) have occurred and our justice system has omitted an investigation and trial.

Yet some of us worry about omission of a "t" in the word statute -- an extremely common typo.

Interesting.

[just1voice]

35. It's about WAR CRIMES, not spelling.

Good grief.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. Thank you

[Politicalboi]

2. I wish they would stop teasing us

Ain't never gonna happen. They didn't even investigate 9/11 fully.

[cstanleytech]

4. Agreed its just not going to happen for a number of reasons but I wish it could happen

as they do belong in prison for the rest of their lives imo.

[totodeinhere]

11. If we could get a bona fide progressive in office in 2016 perhaps it could happen. I don't know if

Cheney would still be alive by then but Bush probably will be.

[cstanleytech]

29. I dont believe that would work because without the support of both houses you wont

see any prosecution let alone a conviction.
And the politicians in both houses for both parties are also to scared to attempt to hold Bush and Cheney responsible for their actions because they fear voter backlash.

[totodeinhere]

32. Actually, the Justice Department would have jurisdiction here, not Congress.

If we get a good progressive in office hopefully she or he would appoint an honest attorney general who would go after those crooks. Congress could complain about it but they would not have the power to stop it. Once it gets into the judicial system then our separation of powers doctrine would prevent Congress from interfering.

I have heard speculation that a former president could be impeached and convicted by Congress in order to remove their pension and benefits. Of course that would involve Congress. But former presidents are also subject to normal criminal or civil prosecution.

Or the Justice department could refer them to the World Court so that they could be tried for crimes against humanity.

[cstanleytech]

42. I am not talking about "say" but rather influence and the congress and senate hold alot of influence

over the government and its varies branches including the DOJ.

[marshall gaines]

3. i love it

i love it, but nothing will ever come of it. Everyone knows america can do no wrong

[loudsue]

6. From her lips to gawd's ears.

Like it would ever happen in today's america.

[24601]

7. Did she comment about killing (without trial) US citizens with hellfire missiles?

[harmonicon]

24. It's not murder when the president does it. nt.

[indepat]

9. If the purported crimes involve nothing more than deceiving the US into war and torturing

the evil-doers with wiretapping Americans thrown in as lagniappe, is it not time to get off Dick's and junior's cases and let them enjoy retirement so they can travel in peace?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

10. What happened to "Hope" in this thread?

I wish it would happen too. Now, what must we do to see that it does?

[annabanana]

12. This open wound will never heal without treatment.

If American citizens have ANYTHING to do with the running of this Country, the citizenry is complicit in the crime if we never prosecute.

[just1voice]

34. So true, I've been saying for years that war crimes just don't go away

So many people think the worst crimes ever committed by the U.S. government can just be brushed aside, they can't. History shows that war crimes never go away, they are heinous acts against humanity that humanity never just forgets.

[PatrynXX]

14. Editors aside (your fired), Dick clearly made sure he'll be around long to go to jail

yeah I can dream. The Rich usually have that get out of jail free card.. like I assume Ted Nugent did. although I know he didn't mean it. , he should be tried as an accessory if any of his nutty fans do something rash.

[progressoid]

15. Pfft. I ain't holding my breath.

[unkachuck]

16. '...have "knowingly" violated at least three statues.'

....so why aren't they being charged with a crime and being held accountable? If we committed crimes we'd be charged, so why aren't bush and cheney?

....I believe we have an unjust multi-level justice system....laws obviously don't apply to everyone equally....just goes to show how broken and bogus our system has become....

[wordpix]

20. +1000, the rich mostly get off, if ever charged with a crime

[hack89]

27. Because it is just one persons opinion?

and other prosecutors and lawyers may see it differently?

[Domingo Tavella]

18. "likely committed conspiracy"?

This is like saying "it is likely that gambling goes on in Vegas". These guys defrauded the American taxpayer of 4 trillion dollars and almost sank the economy for good. This is the worst example of malfeasance in the history of the world, more egregious in fact that the burning of Rome by Nero. This is not what is most disgusting, however. What is most disgusting is that the vast majority of the public swallowed their lies whole, as did practically everyone in Congress. Not even greatly overrated Hillary Clinton saw what anyone with half a brain around the world could clearly see. Should one hold responsible Bush and Cheney for having taken advantage of the stupidity of the public? Or did the people get what they voted for?

[wordpix]

19. er, the word is "statutes" not "statues," geesh

[The Wizard]

21. The Bush cartel

has damaged the American people through illegal and deceptive policies designed to extract money from the Treasury and send it to off shore hidden tax shelters. They committed the greatest robbery in History and left a trail of victims in their wake. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IDemo.

[firehorse]

28. The only thing that could take down Cheney is a gigantic magnet next to his pacemaker, otherwise

those two will never see justice, the powerful rich are above the law. The law is only for us lowly peons.

[bvar22]

31. Now THERE is a "Democrat" who will get a donation from me.

Looking the Other Way on War Crimes doesn't really get me
All Fired Up and Ready to Go.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[panzerfaust]

33. But 'Bama says we need to look to the future

Because the Constitution is a relic of the past.

[polichick]

38. What was that oath of office again?

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Play hardbal, prez, DO IT!

[polichick]

37. Aren't Congress and the President supposed to be about "justice for all"...

...or is that just a quaint old-fashioned idea?

[RZM]

39. There are huge political risks associated with trying Bush and Cheney

In the end, this is what it's all about. I believe that such actions would be wildly popular here on DU, but not so much among the rest of the country. It would probably be pretty far underwater poll-wise, with many more people disapproving than approving.

I believe the Republicans would have an absolute field day with this and could possibly ride it all the way to sweeps of the presidency, senate, and house. They where would we be? When all is said and done, would that be worth it? Is a trial for Bush and Cheney worth padding Boehner's lead in the house, giving McConnell a credible path to 60 votes, and one or more Republican-appointed supreme court justices who will serve for life?

Some might say yes. But the Democratic establishment will say 'hell no,' which is the main reason this will never happen.

Be careful what you wish for . . . .

[truedelphi]

43. If the case was made against Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld too

And there was care taken to see that it was tried in the courts of public perception, it would not be politically infeasible.

Most people are NOT Republicans. In fact, most people are not Democrats.

Something like 26 percent of all Americans feel they must vote for a Republican. And Thirty four percent of all voters feel they must only vote for Democrats.

Most people want justice. They are not at all feeling that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are sacred, and should be protected.

Most people in this country are middle class, and they really truly don't understand why they haven't been protected from such things as predatory lending practices, bank bailouts that DO NOT trickle down (and help the working stiffs), and also foreclosure. Yet Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don't have to worry about being tried for their war crimes? Why ever not?

[RZM]

44. I'm not saying it's right, just speculating how it would go down

Unfortunately I think they would have the edge in the war of perception. Bush had a modest number of people that intensely hated him, but I don't think it would be correct to argue that he was widely despised. His approval rating was in the toilet by the end, but disapproving of his job performance and being anxious to move on from him are quite a ways from wanting him put on trial years after he has been out of office. Bringing serious criminal charges against an ex-president would be uncharted territory for this country - it could end up completely blowing up in the Democrats' faces.

I don't even think you could even get enough genuine Democratic support for this. I'll bet 'let sleeping dogs lie' would be the most popular response if you polled Democrats and independents.

Not saying it's right, but I just don't see enough regular people (and definitely not enough people in power) wanting to go down this road. If we did, I don't think it would end up working out as intended.

[Mosaic]

45. Disagree

I'm tired of fighting with people like you.

[RZM]

46. LOL. Who says we're fighting?

It's a discussion board. Everybody has an opinion. I'm giving my take on what I think would happen and why I believe this hasn't been pursued by the current Democratic administration. I think that the number of people, whether politicians or regular folks, who seriously want to pursue this isn't high enough for it to be a realistic possibility. People have moved on from the Bush administration and the politicians aren't willing to risk their jobs re-fighting last decade's battles.

Don't you think that if Democratic politicians thought they could benefit from this that they would do it? I do. They have other priorities, apparently.

Why would that opinion bother you? I'm not saying it's a fact, I'm saying it's an opinion. Who the hell cares, really?

[JoeyT]

47. There are huge risks to not prosecuting too.

Like making the people that refuse to prosecute them because it's inconvenient just as guilty as they are.

Covering up a war crime is just as bad as committing one. If anything, it's actually worse since it makes more war crimes likely to happen in the future. The people committing them come to believe, and rightly so, that no one will bother to do anything about it.

[panzerfaust]

48. "When all is said and done, would that be worth it?"

It is precisely such attitudes which are making THIS into worthless paper.

Benito, though speaking to Italians in the last century, may now be taken as addressing Americans in the 21st ...

[polichick]

49. So politics should trump "justice for all" and the rule of law??

What's the point of pretending this is a democracy with a constitution anymore?

[RZM]

50. That all depends on your perspective

There are differences of opinion here. I've never said that this shouldn't be done. What I'm doing is pointing out the potential drawbacks. This doesn't seem to be very popular.

If you think that it's worth it to take the risk, cool. I certainly see where you're coming from. What I'm trying to say is that the people who could actually do this most definitely don't, because they don't want to risk their jobs and their agenda over what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did last decade.

There are lots of laws that aren't strictly enforced because doing so would be a political loser. The system ain't perfect.

[polichick]

51. Well, we're just a banana republic if war crimes don't matter...

If our democracy is not "worth the risk" then we're saying fuck the U.S. of A. and everything it stands for.